Unsigned penalty notice is a jurisdictional defect, and curative provisions cannot validate the resulting penalty proceedings.

Section 282A requires an income-tax notice or other document to be signed by the authority, whether issued on paper or electronically, and deeming authentication does not remove that requirement. An unsigned penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was therefore a jurisdictional defect because it was neither manually nor digitally signed. Section 292B could not cure the defect, since absence of signature went to the root of valid initiation of penalty proceedings. The Tribunal held that an unsigned jurisdictional notice could not sustain the penalty proceedings or the resulting penalty order, which was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was invalid for want of signature under section 282A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and whether the consequent penalty proceedings and penalty order could be sustained.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that section 282A(1) makes signing of a notice or other document by the income-tax authority a mandatory requirement, whether the notice is issued in paper form or communicated electronically. It further held that the deeming authentication under section 282A(2) does not dispense with the requirement of signature. The notice initiating penalty proceedings was found to be neither manually nor digitally signed, making it a jurisdictional defect. The Tribunal also held that section 292B does not cure the defect because absence of signature is not a mere technical irregularity but goes to the root of jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on binding and persuasive precedents to conclude that an unsigned jurisdictional notice cannot validly initiate penalty proceedings.

Conclusion: The penalty notice was invalid, the subsequent penalty proceedings could not stand, and the penalty order was quashed.

---